Case law

Opinion No. 73-273 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 10, 1974

In the early case of Lusk, et al. v. … The old version of the latter section, almost identical to the present law, was construed in Chapman v.

Opinion No. 74-170 (1974) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 22, 1974

Further, applying the rule of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius", Spiers v. … that they are in aid of and not in derogation of the legislative purpose. 42 Am.Jur. 380, 69, and P. 353, 49; Layman v.

Opinion No. 77-142 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 29, 1977

In a 1924 California case, Goldsmith v. … Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 (1968). As stated by the United States Supreme Court in the ease of Tinker v.

Opinion No. 73-191 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 1973

E.2d 802), must not be unfair (Inland Steel Company) v. N.L.R.B., 109 F.2d 9 ), must not be discriminatory or arbitrary (Railroad Commissioner v. Shell Oil Company, 206 S.W.2d 420 , 146 Tex. 286 and Krill v. … Supp. 14 ), must not be an expression of a whim (American Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. United States, 57 S.Ct. 170 , 299 U.S. 232 , 81 L.Ed. 142 ; and Nelson v.

Opinion No. 76-300 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 30, 1976

See School Board of Consolidated District No. 36, Stephens County v. Edwards, 184 Okl. 384 , 87 P.2d 962 , 967 (1939), and Davenport v. Buffington, 97 F. 234 , 237 (8th Cir. 1899). See also Harvey v. … Further, Syllabus 1 by the Court in Joachim v.

Opinion No. (1997)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 10, 1997

Citicorp Savings and Trust Company v. Banking Board, 704 P.2d 490 , 494 (Okla. 1985). … Kirk v.

Opinion No. 71-188 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 17, 1971

Does the Board of County Commissioners have the authority to set the hours of operation of the Election Board?" … We have checked other provisions of law and find no such authority for the Board of County Commissioners. In the case of State ex rel Tharel, et al. v.

Opinion No. (1997)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 24, 1997

secretary as outlined in Section 2877 of this title. 68 O.S. 1991 , § 2863[ 68-2863 ] (B) (emphasis added). ¶ 3 In Keyes v. … Jackson v. Independent School District No. 16, 648 P.2d 26 , 29 (Okla. 1982).

Opinion No. (1999)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 22, 1999

Hill v. Board of Education, 944 P.2d 930 , 931 (Okla. 1997). … See, e.g., Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). As quoted in the case Marshall Oil Corporation v.

Opinion No. 76-363 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 25, 1977

Specifically, the payment of money to private organizations has been held to be violative of this constitutional provision, Children's Home and Welfare Association v. … Childers, 197 Okl. 243 , 171 P.2d 613 (1946), and Veterans of Foreign Wars of U.S., Department of Oklahoma v. Childers, 197 Okl. 331 , 171 P.2d 618 (1946).

Opinion No. (1996)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 30, 1996

Article V , Section 55 (emphasis added). ¶ 2 In both State v. Carter, 30 P.2d 700 , 703 (Okla. 1934), and Miller v. … As the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized years ago in Miller v.

Opinion No. 73-170 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 22, 1973

In Stephenson, et al. v. … Board of County Commissioners, 468 P.2d 501 (Okl. 1970); and Boydston v. State, 277 P.2d 138 (Okl. 1954).

Opinion No. 76-194 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 29, 1976

See Mann v. Nyquist, 71 N.Y. Misc.2d 435, 336 N.Y.2d 270 (1972), and Sinapkin v. Nyquist, 68 N.Y. Misc.2d 214, 325 N.Y. Supp. 823 (1971). … See, State v. Board of Education of City of Duluth, 213 Minn. 550 , 7 N.W.2d 544 (1943). However, the principal purpose of the tenure statutes is to secure permanency in the teaching force.

Opinion No. 78-210 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 7, 1978

See also Investment and Securities Company v. Robbins, D.C. Wash., 49 F. Supp. 620 ; The Southern Railways Company v. Oklahoma City, 12 Okl. 82 , 69 P. 1050 (1902). … Pell v. Ball, S.C., Spears, EQ. 48, 83; Clark v. Lucas County Board of Review, Iowa, 44 N.W.2d 748 .

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 6, 1989

SEE SPEARMAN V. … V.

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 8, 1989

WHEN THE EXCISE BOARD UNDERTAKES TO REVIEW THE ESTIMATE OF NEEDS PURSUANT TO 68 O.S. 2487 (2) OR TO REVISE THE ESTIMATE OF NEEDS PURSUANT TO 68 O.S. 2487 (5), IT CLEARLY EXERCISES ITS LAWFUL DISCRETION. SEE ABEL V. … MADDEN, 738 P. 2D 1340 (OKL. 1987); ROGERS V. EXCISE BOARD OF GREER COUNTY, 701 P 2D 754 (OKL. 1984); AND SUMMEY V. TISDALE, 658 P. 2D 464 (OKL. 1982).

Opinion No. (1986)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 7, 1986

Absent a rule setting out the procedure to be used by the Board to change a beneficial use designation to a lower designation because of a mistake, the Board may not make such a change. See, Adams v. … At such time as the Board properly adopts such a rule or regulation, the Board may change a beneficial use designation to a less stringent one to correct a factual error. V .

Opinion No. 76-257 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 22, 1976

Concerning that language of Article XXIII, Section 10, the Court in Coyle v. … It is clear from the foregoing, that the Court in Coyle v.

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 12, 1990

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CHOCTAW NATION V. CRAYTOR, 600 P.2D 314 (OKL. 1979). … ELIMINATION/SUPERVISION OF THE BOARD.

Opinion No. (2003)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 18, 2003

Porter v. Ferrell, 959 P.2d 576 , 578 (Okla. 1998); Maltsberger v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 987 P.2d 437 , 438 (Okla.Ct.App. 1999)), it does not always have this meaning. See Davis v. GHS Health Maint. … McNeill v. City of Tulsa, 953 P.2d 329 , 332 (Okla. 1998).